About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
about any of these events visit us at s f gvment gov tv dot ordinary care an please beware that the commission [inaudible] any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you'd like to speak on an agendized item, please fill out a speaker card and when speaking to the commission speak into the microphone and do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first up, commissioners, on your calendar, consideration of items proposed for continuance, item 1, case no. 2012.1442c for 795 folsom street, request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february 28th, 2013. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the one item proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner sugaya. >> move
is for the costa country club's outdoor activity and the second is reserved for the use of open space for the current residential unit on the 3rd floor. the difference would be the current proposal, the area would be separated by an hvac installation instead of the previous fixed planters. the project requires the planning commission a restaurant on the ground floor pursuant to planning code section 715.44. the second action is for the legalization of a change of occupancy of a residential use to a non-residential use to the castro country club. pursuant to -- i'm sorry -- the country club with the second floor outdoor activity area. and that basically the department would still maintain the original recommendation for approval. this is for a recommendation for approval for the proposed restaurant on the ground floor. it is not a formula retail use, but rather an independent, locally-owned business. it is designed to serve residents from the neighborhood, and patrons of other businesses on castro or 18th street and it's not a destination restaurant. no. 3, it contributes to the ec
, commissioners, planning staff. the project before you is the second conditional use authorization request from domino's pizza and the proposal is to establish a new formula retail lease at 1109 fillmore and golden gate avenue. the proposed site is located along the district along the western addition neighborhood district. it currently operates three blocks north of the proposed site and it's vacating the space and moving to 1109 fillmore, which is occupied by a limit the restaurant use as well. according to new information by the project sponsor since the release of the report they want to relocate in the immediate area. as already presented the applicant has submitted two conditional use authorization requests before you, the first to relocate his existing building to the 1109 fillmore site and the alternate at 3015 geary boulevard is the one that was previously heard under item 156789 the subject neighborhood is characterized by a diverse mix of goods and services. the subject nine-block district span president bush street, southward to mcallister street. the corridor is well-served by tran
use authorization. case five at 795 folsom street request for conditional use authorization and six for 3221 20th street and request for conditional use authorization and case seven at 975 bryant street. just to clarify item seven for 975 bryant street was considered on february 14, 2013 and following testimony the commission continued the matter to this date. the motion for today under concept is for disapproval. commissioners i think there is interest to pull a couple of items off of consent. >> is there any public comment for the items on the consent calendar? do you want to come up up? >> yes, i would like to remove item four, the request for conditional use authorization. from the consent calendar please. >> okay. >> and your name? >> my name is michelle carter. >> okay. thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> i would also like to remove number four. my name is wendy beam. thank you. >> hi, i am mark dennis and i would like number four removed from the consent calendar. >> it only takes one person. >> any additional public comment for matters on the consent calen
to justify the interim use of the site. well, this is not required below grade extraction. it facilitated the building of the cable car. however, it then returned the property to its potential realization with an entitled residential project, which at its time was slightly too large, but that is not what we're discussing here. using an sud for an interim use and then tagging on a project which by necessity of demolition for the interim use would require cu without submitting proper drawings which, one, in approving sud and approving cu are required i think is unfathomable to me. this commission spent a lot of time against some of our convictionses at the time and we approved the project with the very thoughtfully executed design which with many tucks and twists and turns, but forward a project that the neighborhood was comfortable with at large. i support the design, although there were people who asked us to hold out and not approve. after so many years, as the audience here testified, this site needed a change. why can't this project not in good faith come back to this commission as a r
] correct it for lots along the way. i understand people say it could be specialty use. we have these situations all the time. we approved philanthropic uses which applies to certain lots because the project sponsor we had earlier in sacramento street was also specific more to a lot we were able to expand it. something that might be easier to consider to look at this more broadly if the legal asian of existing off-site kitchens, having a process or pass maybe city-wide for that. i imagine there are a lot of illegal off-site kitchens. the issue around food trucks, i have a restaurant right on the corner from where i live that also has a food truck. i see the food going back and forth. i know other [speaker not understood] don't have brick and mortar restaurants. they're [speaker not understood], one first step just might be legalization of an existing off-site restaurant and ncts throughout the city could be step one. and then step two, looking at -- because obviously most people are fine with the status quo. the issue is we don't know if we do a new balance, creating kitchens al
think the commission as part of its previous approval stated that some of us interested to see the final fa├žade design to be reviewed by some of us. i have not had the opportunity to follow up with staff. those commissioners who want to be involved should continue to do so. i want to restate the continued interest of some of us to participate in the final configuration. >>: anyway. to staff, in terms of the one-year permitting trigger, with respect to the building permit, is there a specific permit that is referenced? can they go in for a site permit and that counts? >>: the first construction permit in this case is -- >>: in this case it would be the architectural addenda. >> commissioner antonini: i moved to approve, the required action must contain (indiscernible) >>: second. >>: on that motion: >> commissioner antonini: aye >> commissioner borden: aye >> commissioner hillis: aye >> commissioner moore: aye >> commissioner sugaya: aye >> commissioner wu: >> president fong: aye it passes unanimously, 7-0. we do have a member of the entertainment commission here, for item 13, enter
district use legislation. very briefly i did want to state that the sud is contingent on the lease negotiations that the mta is conducting with the owner of 1741 powell. the negotiations are going. our requested for a continuance of one week. >> president fong: additional public comment on the two items proposed for continuance? >>: my name is richard hamlin longtime resident of north beach. i want this project very much. extraction down at the pagoda and perhaps someday having a station there. >>: -- we submitted a legal letter to the planning commission. -- opposes and objects to the extraction at the pagoda and zoning map amendment and special use district on the grounds of this project is obviously very different from the original project that was approved in the eir by example the geotechnical engineers letter included in the package points out the very high water table and the de-watering and pressure on adjacent buildings not evaluated on a previous eir. also,-- >>: this public comment is only to the continuance itself. >>: should i make comments during the general commen
rhode island street, request for conditional use authorization. i believe commissioner moore is requesting that it be pulled off. >> [inaudible]. >> we'll place that first item under the regular calendar. moving on, commissioners, commissioners questions and matters, item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for january 31st, 2013. >> is there any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner borden. >> approve draft minutes november -- excuse me, from january 31st. >> second. >> on the motion to adopt minutes for january 31st, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? he aye. >>and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under item 4, commission questions and comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a couple of things, i've been hearing these reports in the news about an impending demolition of candlestick park. about a year from now, if in fact th
us to think differently about that. i mean, how do we not have to save ourselves from ourselves? how is it that we don't -- how do we promote a culture that is a starbucks oregon charred supply, a neighborhood people don't patronize those differences so they don't survive, they don't want to come to san francisco? why is it that there is that tension and we basically have to try to stop people from doing that? i don't know. it's weird, it's an interesting kind of dynamic, but that's actually what we're asking ourselves to do, save ourselves from ourselves and, you know, i do believe that i see an impact and it's hard because necessary and desirable is our conditional use threshold. i don't know that necessary desirable improvement in this particular case. i don't know why -- it sounds like we have lots of other hardware related uses that exist, you know. obviously desirability is very much a subjective terminology which i think is why it makes it funny when you have that for conditional use. but in term of necessity, you know, i don't see that there is a necessity. obviously if
they might go in there, they may need a bigger space. i think that's a very attractive building. the use of the colors, it's a little darker, make things all pale, white, it all looks the same. then again, you can get some colors that look a little too crazy. but, you know, i think that's a part of it. and i mentioned the rounding of corners to try to cut the angularity and might tend to make the buildings a little more attractive. because there are -- you know, it's sort of always going to be a quasi-suburban -- i don't like the term because of the nature of mission bay. it's just going to be different than densely packed city blocks in the financial district or in even the area south of market which are longer blocks, but they're still pretty densely packed with previous industrial buildings. and it's going to have more of a separation. it's going to have more parking. it's going to have a lot of things that are, you know, but i think there are some very successful suburban parks and some that aren't very successful. i mentioned to bo earlier, the hacienda park in pleasanton, if you've
. proposition c is becoming increasingly important for us. the first thing we have is the financing memo which shows that we went out with a 12 percent affordable. 48 affordable units and 351. based on that financing we got some proposals from lenders the most .serious one was prudential. -- -0 what we have is we have something, the formal appraisal that prudential authorized had that as part of their basis. next, we went and got it formal commitment from prudential on december fourteenth; we got a 90-day locked rate. right now we have a 142 million dollar with a lock that expires on march 14. it is expressly conditioned on getting prop c approval. the next document is a letter from -- and material consideration of pmc underwriting the loan is inclusion of affordable housing. key assumption is the 12% affordable. boy, am i nervous. sorry. finally, with regards to prudential there is the actual construction loan agreement. i have not included the whole thing. page 59 of that expressly once again says that this loan is absolutely conditional on the prop c approval. finally, in your package w
for the broader floor plates and it allows tech uses and other uses that need this kind of configuration to come to satisfy. and i know of another situation that's similar to this at the present time uop [speaker not understood] dental school is renovating a building that already has these broad plates on 5th street near mission. and i was a graduate of the earlier facility and i can speak to the difficulty that facility has in its present location because of the narrowness. so, it's not just tech, but other uses. it's important that we get broad floor plates. however, this has to be correct and i think the things they've done in terms of tower separation, bulk, are very much in keeping with the code. as was pointed out by mr. guy, because of the tdr sold by 6 20, 63 1 howard, there never will be another tower that they have to separate themselves from because even if that building were to be destroyed in a fire or some other manner, it could never be built to more of a height than it's at now because they've already sold their tdrs. and then the bulk, there are a number of ways that you can gra
knows more about it than me. i think because he is used to staff the committee. but, i think that the intent was for the funds, which do not replicate themselves. i mean, i forget the original amount, mr. hillis, around $2 million? >> $2.5 million. >> yes. and then each time there is a grant allocation, then it gets depleted. so i think that we have to treat that some what as a priority for the community to be able to apply for funding. and that is not to say that they are not worthy city projects too. but i just want to comment on the 250. it seems aufully large to me. having dealt with design guidelines in the past and especially with respect to historic areas. and i don't want to get into a debate about it. but i would ask the department to take a more serious look at what the ultimate cost will be. >> it is likely that some level of environmental review will be necessary, and if it is an nir it has to be more than that, but i am hopefully we will able to do it within that. >> there was one other question that a member of the public posed to me and that was apparently we a
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)